DOCSLIB.ORG

Sexual and Seasonal Dimorphisms in the Dermal, Dental and Ampullary Structures of the Lesser-Spotted Catshark, Scyliorhinus Canicula

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sexual and Seasonal Dimorphisms in the Dermal, Dental and Ampullary Structures of the Lesser-Spotted Catshark, Scyliorhinus Canicula Sexual and Seasonal Dimorphisms in the Dermal, Dental and Ampullary Structures of the Lesser-Spotted Catshark, Scyliorhinus canicula Neil Crooks The thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Portsmouth. September 2011 ABSTRACT Sexual dimorphisms in head morphology, integument and dentition of some elasmobranch species have been established. These dimorphisms are reportedly linked to reproductive behaviour, whereby male biting during copulation results in a dimorphism in head dimensions and dentition and, as a result, differences in skin thickness. The findings for Scyliorhinus canicula from the Solent support the findings of other authors, whereby adult males were found to possess longer, narrower mouths and a longer head than adult females. Juvenile male catsharks were found to possess a longer mouth than females. No head, mouth or jaw dimorphisms for hatchling catsharks were found. Adult male catsharks were found to possess unicuspid teeth, with large central cusps, in contrast to the pentacuspid form of female and immature catsharks. A sexual dimorphism was found in the tooth row numbers for hatchling and adult catsharks, with hatchling males possessing a greater number of tooth rows than hatchling females on the lower jaw and adult males possessing a greater number of tooth rows than adult females in the upper jaw. Seasonal comparisons were made to ascertain whether morphological changes occurred that could indicate a mating season for the Solent population of S. canicula . Adult head length, mouth length and mouth width were found to be significantly different. Adult males sampled in all seasons possessed a longer mouth than females sampled in all seasons, whilst the lower jaw length was significantly greater for adult males in all seasons compared to adult females. Juvenile female catsharks were found to possess a thicker epidermis than juvenile male catsharks in all seasons of the year, whilst adult females possessed a thicker epidermal layer than adult males, findings not previously reported in this species. Adult females were found to possess a thicker dermal layer in all seasons compared to adult male catsharks. Adult females also possessed wider and longer dermal denticles on the pectoral fins than adult males. Hatchling catsharks had a greater dermal i denticle density on both fins indicating the possession of smaller dermal denticles than hatchling females. A sexual dimorphism was found in the Ampullae of Lorenzini with male catsharks possessing a greater number of alveoli than adult females, possibly both an ecological and reproductive adaptation. The seasonal and sexual dimorphisms found in this study do not directly indicate a specific mating season for this species in the Solent. ii Contents Chapter 1 – General Introduction......................................................................................1 1.1 Mouth, Jaw and Tooth Morphology ............................................................................ 5 1.2 Skin Structure ............................................................................................................. 10 1.3 Ampullae of Lorenzini ............................................................................................... 12 1.4 Reproductive Seasonality ........................................................................................... 16 1.5 Aims ........................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 2 - General Materials and Methods...................................................................26 2.1 Experimental Specimens ............................................................................................ 26 2.2 Specimen Processing .................................................................................................. 29 2.3 Hatchling Morphometrics .......................................................................................... 30 2.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 31 2.5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 31 2.5.1 Hatchling Samples .............................................................................................. 31 2.5.2 Juvenile and Adult Samples ................................................................................ 31 Chapter 3 – Head, Mouth and Jaws.................................................................................42 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 42 3.1.1 Elasmobranch Head ............................................................................................ 42 3.1.2 Elasmobranch Jaws ............................................................................................. 44 3.1.3 Mouth Morphometrics ........................................................................................ 49 3.2 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................... 52 3.2.1 Head and Jaws ..................................................................................................... 52 3.2.2 Head and Mouth Measurements.......................................................................... 53 3.2.3 Jaw Preparation ................................................................................................... 54 3.2.4 Statistical Analyses ............................................................................................. 55 3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 57 3.3.1 Head and Mouth Data ......................................................................................... 57 3.3.1.1 Hatchling Head Morphometrics ................................................................... 57 3.3.1.2 Juvenile Head and Mouth Morphometrics ................................................... 60 3.3.2 Adult Head and Mouth Morphometrics .............................................................. 64 3.3.2.1 Pre-Branchial Length ................................................................................... 64 3.3.2.2 Head Width .................................................................................................. 66 3.3.2.3 Pre-Oral Length ............................................................................................ 68 3.3.2.4 Mouth Length ............................................................................................... 70 3.3.2.5 Mouth Width ................................................................................................ 71 3.3.3 Jaw Data .............................................................................................................. 73 3.3.3.1 Hatchling Jaw Data ...................................................................................... 73 3.3.4 Juvenile Jaw Data ................................................................................................ 74 3.3.4.1 Upper Jaw..................................................................................................... 74 3.3.4.2 Lower Jaw .................................................................................................... 77 3.3.5 Adult Jaw Data .................................................................................................... 80 iii 3.3.5.1 Upper Jaw Length ........................................................................................ 80 3.3.5.2 Upper Jaw Width.......................................................................................... 82 3.3.5.3 Upper Jaw Diameter ..................................................................................... 85 3.3.5.4 Upper Jaw Depth .......................................................................................... 87 3.3.5.5 Lower Jaw Length ........................................................................................ 89 3.3.5.6 Lower Jaw width .......................................................................................... 90 3.3.5.7 Lower Jaw Diameter .................................................................................... 92 3.3.5.8 Lower Jaw Depth ......................................................................................... 94 3.3.6 Discriminant Analysis ......................................................................................... 96 3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 97 3.4.1 Head and Mouth Data ......................................................................................... 99 3.4.1.1 Hatchling Head and Mouth Morphometrics ................................................ 99 3.4.1.2 Juvenile Head and Mouth Morphometrics ................................................... 99 3.4.1.3 Adult Head and Mouth Morphometrics ..................................................... 101 3.4.2 Jaw Morphometrics ........................................................................................... 102 3.4.2.1 Hatchling Upper and Lower Jaw Morphometrics ...................................... 102 3.4.2.2 Juvenile Upper and Lower Jaw Morphometrics .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Stingray from South Africa
    Nature Vol. 289 22 January 1981 221 A new stingray from South Africa from Alwyne Wheeler ICHTHYOLOGISTS are accustomed to the regular description of previously un­ recognized species of fishes, which if not a daily event at least happens so frequently as not to cause great comment. Previously undescribed genera are like­ wise not infrequently published, but higher categories are increasingly less common. The discovery of a new stingray, which is so different from all known rays as to require both a new family and a new suborder to accommodate its distinctive characters, is therefore a remarkable event. A recent paper by P.e. Heemstra and M.M. Smith (Ichthyological Bulletin oj the J. L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology 43, I; 1980) describes this most striking ray as Hexatrygon bickelli and discusses its differences from other batoid fishes. Surprisingly, this remarkable fish was not the result of some organized deep-sea fishing programme, but was found lying on the beach at Port Elizabeth. It was fresh but had suffered some loss of skin by sand abrasion on the beach, and the margins of its fins appeared desiccated in places. The way it was discovered leaves a tantalising question as to its normal habitat, but Heemstra and Smith suggest that it may live in moderately deep water of 400-1,000m. This suggestion is Ventral view of Hexatrygon bickelli supported by its general appearance (small eyes, thin black dorsal skin, f1acid an acellular jelly, while the underside is chimaeroids Rhinochimaera and snout) and the chemistry of its liver-oil. richly supplied with well developed Harriota, and there can be little doubt The classification of Hexatrygon ampullae of Lorenzini.
    [Show full text]
  • Symmoriiform Sharks from the Pennsylvanian of Nebraska
    Acta Geologica Polonica, Vol. 68 (2018), No. 3, pp. 391–401 DOI: 10.1515/agp-2018-0009 Symmoriiform sharks from the Pennsylvanian of Nebraska MICHAŁ GINTER University of Warsaw, Faculty of Geology, Żwirki i Wigury 93, PL-02-089 Warsaw, Poland. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Ginter, M. 2018. Symmoriiform sharks from the Pennsylvanian of Nebraska. Acta Geologica Polonica, 68 (3), 391–401. Warszawa. The Indian Cave Sandstone (Upper Pennsylvanian, Gzhelian) from the area of Peru, Nebraska, USA, has yielded numerous isolated chondrichthyan remains and among them teeth and dermal denticles of the Symmoriiformes Zangerl, 1981. Two tooth-based taxa were identified: a falcatid Denaea saltsmani Ginter and Hansen, 2010, and a new species of Stethacanthus Newberry, 1889, S. concavus sp. nov. In addition, there occur a few long, monocuspid tooth-like denticles, similar to those observed in Cobelodus Zangerl, 1973, probably represent- ing the head cover or the spine-brush complex. A review of the available information on the fossil record of Symmoriiformes has revealed that the group existed from the Late Devonian (Famennian) till the end of the Middle Permian (Capitanian). Key words: Symmoriiformes; Microfossils; Carboniferous; Indian Cave Sandstone; USA Midcontinent. INTRODUCTION size and shape is concerned [compare the thick me- dian cusp, almost a centimetre long, in Stethacanthus The Symmoriiformes (Symmoriida sensu Zan- neilsoni (Traquair, 1898), and the minute, 0.5 mm gerl 1981) are a group of Palaeozoic cladodont sharks wide, multicuspid, comb-like tooth of Denaea wangi sharing several common characters: relatively short Wang, Jin and Wang, 2004; Ginter et al. 2010, figs skulls, large eyes, terminal mouth, epicercal but ex- 58A–C and 61, respectively].
    [Show full text]
  • The Rufford Foundation Final Report
    The Rufford Foundation Final Report Congratulations on the completion of your project that was supported by The Rufford Foundation. We ask all grant recipients to complete a Final Report Form that helps us to gauge the success of our grant giving. The Final Report must be sent in word format and not PDF format or any other format. We understand that projects often do not follow the predicted course but knowledge of your experiences is valuable to us and others who may be undertaking similar work. Please be as honest as you can in answering the questions – remember that negative experiences are just as valuable as positive ones if they help others to learn from them. Please complete the form in English and be as clear and concise as you can. Please note that the information may be edited for clarity. We will ask for further information if required. If you have any other materials produced by the project, particularly a few relevant photographs, please send these to us separately. Please submit your final report to [email protected]. Thank you for your help. Josh Cole, Grants Director Grant Recipient Details Your name Sheila Rodríguez Machado Assessing genetic diversity of the Cuban endemic fish Project title Limia vittata (Poeciliidae): implications for its conservation RSG reference 17653-1 Reporting period July, 2015-July, 2016 Amount of grant £5000 Your email address [email protected] Date of this report August, 2016 1. Please indicate the level of achievement of the project’s original objectives and include any relevant comments on factors affecting this.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Risk and Conservation of the World's Sharks and Rays
    RESEARCH ARTICLE elife.elifesciences.org Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays Nicholas K Dulvy1,2*, Sarah L Fowler3, John A Musick4, Rachel D Cavanagh5, Peter M Kyne6, Lucy R Harrison1,2, John K Carlson7, Lindsay NK Davidson1,2, Sonja V Fordham8, Malcolm P Francis9, Caroline M Pollock10, Colin A Simpfendorfer11,12, George H Burgess13, Kent E Carpenter14,15, Leonard JV Compagno16, David A Ebert17, Claudine Gibson3, Michelle R Heupel18, Suzanne R Livingstone19, Jonnell C Sanciangco14,15, John D Stevens20, Sarah Valenti3, William T White20 1IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 2Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 3IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom; 4Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, United States; 5British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 6Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; 7Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, United States; 8Shark Advocates International, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, United States; 9National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand; 10Global Species Programme, International Union for the Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Electrosensory Pore Distribution and Feeding in the Basking Shark Cetorhinus Maximus (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae)
    Vol. 12: 33–36, 2011 AQUATIC BIOLOGY Published online March 3 doi: 10.3354/ab00328 Aquat Biol NOTE Electrosensory pore distribution and feeding in the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae) Ryan M. Kempster*, Shaun P. Collin The UWA Oceans Institute and the School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia ABSTRACT: The basking shark Cetorhinus maximus is the second largest fish in the world, attaining lengths of up to 10 m. Very little is known of its sensory biology, particularly in relation to its feeding behaviour. We describe the abundance and distribution of ampullary pores over the head and pro- pose that both the spacing and orientation of electrosensory pores enables C. maximus to use passive electroreception to track the diel vertical migrations of zooplankton that enable the shark to meet the energetic costs of ram filter feeding. KEY WORDS: Ampullae of Lorenzini · Electroreception · Filter feeding · Basking shark Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION shark Rhincodon typus and the megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios, which can attain lengths of up Electroreception is an ancient sensory modality that to 14 and 6 m, respectively (Compagno 1984). These 3 has evolved independently across the animal kingdom filter-feeding sharks are among the largest living in multiple groups (Scheich et al. 1986, Collin & White- marine vertebrates (Compagno 1984) and yet they are head 2004). Repeated independent evolution of elec- all able to meet their energetic costs through the con- troreception emphasises the importance of this sense sumption of tiny zooplankton.
    [Show full text]
  • TNP SOK 2011 Internet
    GARDEN ROUTE NATIONAL PARK : THE TSITSIKAMMA SANP ARKS SECTION STATE OF KNOWLEDGE Contributors: N. Hanekom 1, R.M. Randall 1, D. Bower, A. Riley 2 and N. Kruger 1 1 SANParks Scientific Services, Garden Route (Rondevlei Office), PO Box 176, Sedgefield, 6573 2 Knysna National Lakes Area, P.O. Box 314, Knysna, 6570 Most recent update: 10 May 2012 Disclaimer This report has been produced by SANParks to summarise information available on a specific conservation area. Production of the report, in either hard copy or electronic format, does not signify that: the referenced information necessarily reflect the views and policies of SANParks; the referenced information is either correct or accurate; SANParks retains copies of the referenced documents; SANParks will provide second parties with copies of the referenced documents. This standpoint has the premise that (i) reproduction of copywrited material is illegal, (ii) copying of unpublished reports and data produced by an external scientist without the author’s permission is unethical, and (iii) dissemination of unreviewed data or draft documentation is potentially misleading and hence illogical. This report should be cited as: Hanekom N., Randall R.M., Bower, D., Riley, A. & Kruger, N. 2012. Garden Route National Park: The Tsitsikamma Section – State of Knowledge. South African National Parks. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 2. ACCOUNT OF AREA........................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-01-25 Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores Borkovic, Benjamin Borkovic, B. (2013). Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26635 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/498 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores by Benjamin Borkovic A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CALGARY, ALBERTA JANUARY, 2013 © Benjamin Borkovic 2013 Abstract Evidence for sexual dimorphism was investigated in the horncores of two ceratopsid dinosaurs, Triceratops and Centrosaurus apertus. A review of studies of sexual dimorphism in the vertebrate fossil record revealed methods that were selected for use in ceratopsids. Mountain goats, bison, and pronghorn were selected as exemplar taxa for a proof of principle study that tested the selected methods, and informed and guided the investigation of sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs. Skulls of these exemplar taxa were measured in museum collections, and methods of analysing morphological variation were tested for their ability to demonstrate sexual dimorphism in their horns and horncores.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an Updated Checklist
    1 2 Marine fishes from Galicia (NW Spain): an updated checklist 3 4 5 RAFAEL BAÑON1, DAVID VILLEGAS-RÍOS2, ALBERTO SERRANO3, 6 GONZALO MUCIENTES2,4 & JUAN CARLOS ARRONTE3 7 8 9 10 1 Servizo de Planificación, Dirección Xeral de Recursos Mariños, Consellería de Pesca 11 e Asuntos Marítimos, Rúa do Valiño 63-65, 15703 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. E- 12 mail: [email protected] 13 2 CSIC. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas. Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208 Vigo 14 (Pontevedra), Spain. E-mail: [email protected] (D. V-R); [email protected] 15 (G.M.). 16 3 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Santander, Spain. E-mail: 17 [email protected] (A.S); [email protected] (J.-C. A). 18 4Centro Tecnológico del Mar, CETMAR. Eduardo Cabello s.n., 36208. Vigo 19 (Pontevedra), Spain. 20 21 Abstract 22 23 An annotated checklist of the marine fishes from Galician waters is presented. The list 24 is based on historical literature records and new revisions. The ichthyofauna list is 25 composed by 397 species very diversified in 2 superclass, 3 class, 35 orders, 139 1 1 families and 288 genus. The order Perciformes is the most diverse one with 37 families, 2 91 genus and 135 species. Gobiidae (19 species) and Sparidae (19 species) are the 3 richest families. Biogeographically, the Lusitanian group includes 203 species (51.1%), 4 followed by 149 species of the Atlantic (37.5%), then 28 of the Boreal (7.1%), and 17 5 of the African (4.3%) groups. We have recognized 41 new records, and 3 other records 6 have been identified as doubtful.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals
    Jelle Atema Richard R. Fay Arthur N. Popper William N. Tavolga Editors Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg London Paris Tokyo JELLE ATEMA, Boston University Marine Program, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA Richard R. Fay, Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois 60626, USA ARTHUR N. POPPER, Department of Zoology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA WILLIAM N. TAVOLGA, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida 33577, USA The cover Illustration is a reproduction of Figure 13.3, p. 343 of this volume Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sensory biology of aquatic animals. Papers based on presentations given at an International Conference on the Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals held, June 24-28, 1985, at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Aquatic animals—Physiology—Congresses. 2. Senses and Sensation—Congresses. I. Atema, Jelle. II. International Conference on the Sensory Biology - . of Aquatic Animals (1985 : Sarasota, Fla.) QL120.S46 1987 591.92 87-9632 © 1988 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc. x —• All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York 10010, U.S.A.), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of Information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, Computer Software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    06_250317 part1-3.qxd 12/13/05 7:32 PM Page 15 Phylum Chordata Chordates are placed in the superphylum Deuterostomia. The possible rela- tionships of the chordates and deuterostomes to other metazoans are dis- cussed in Halanych (2004). He restricts the taxon of deuterostomes to the chordates and their proposed immediate sister group, a taxon comprising the hemichordates, echinoderms, and the wormlike Xenoturbella. The phylum Chordata has been used by most recent workers to encompass members of the subphyla Urochordata (tunicates or sea-squirts), Cephalochordata (lancelets), and Craniata (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). The Cephalochordata and Craniata form a mono- phyletic group (e.g., Cameron et al., 2000; Halanych, 2004). Much disagree- ment exists concerning the interrelationships and classification of the Chordata, and the inclusion of the urochordates as sister to the cephalochor- dates and craniates is not as broadly held as the sister-group relationship of cephalochordates and craniates (Halanych, 2004). Many excitingCOPYRIGHTED fossil finds in recent years MATERIAL reveal what the first fishes may have looked like, and these finds push the fossil record of fishes back into the early Cambrian, far further back than previously known. There is still much difference of opinion on the phylogenetic position of these new Cambrian species, and many new discoveries and changes in early fish systematics may be expected over the next decade. As noted by Halanych (2004), D.-G. (D.) Shu and collaborators have discovered fossil ascidians (e.g., Cheungkongella), cephalochordate-like yunnanozoans (Haikouella and Yunnanozoon), and jaw- less craniates (Myllokunmingia, and its junior synonym Haikouichthys) over the 15 06_250317 part1-3.qxd 12/13/05 7:32 PM Page 16 16 Fishes of the World last few years that push the origins of these three major taxa at least into the Lower Cambrian (approximately 530–540 million years ago).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Peces 1 13 Low.Pdf
    ISSN 2410-7492 Acces RNPS 2403 Abierto Revista Cubana de Zoología http://revistas.geotech.cu/index.php/poey COLECCIONES ZOOLÓGICAS 503 (julio-diciembre, 2016): 1 - 13 Catálogo ilustrado de los especímenes tipo de peces cubanos II (Osteichthyes, clase: Actinopterygii: Cyprinodontiformes, Gadiformes, Lampridiformes, Mugiliformes, Myctophiformes, Ophidiformes) Isabel FALOH-GANDARILLA1* , Luis S. ALVAREZ-LAJONCHERE2 , Erik GARCÍA- MACHADO3 , Elena GUTIÉRREZ DE LOS REYES1 , María.V.OROZCO1 , Rolando CORTÉS1 , Yusimí ALFONSO1 , Elida LEMUS1 , Raúl Igor CORRADA WONG1 , Pedro CHEVALIER- MONTEAGUDO1 , Alexis Ramón FERNÁNDEZ OSORIA1 , Roberto PÉREZ DE LOS REYES1 , Isis L. ÁLVAREZ1 1Acuario Nacional de Cuba (ANC), Ave. Primera y Calle 60, Miramar, Playa, La Habana, Cuba. 2Calle 41 No. 886, N. Vedado, Plaza, La Habana, C.P. 10600, Cuba 3Centro de Investigaciones Marinas, Universidad de la Habana, Calle 16, No. 114 entre 1ra y 3ra, Miramar, Playa, La Habana, C.P. 11300, Cuba *Autor para correspondencia: [email protected] Resumen. Se recopila información para representar los MYCTOPHIFORMES, OPHIDIFORMES). The especímenes tipo de 29 especies de peces cubanos information from different databases was collected to (Superclase Osteichthyes), desde el Orden present the type specimens of 29 Cuban fishes (Superclass Cyprinodontiformes hasta el Orden Ophidiiformes. La Osteichthyes) in alphabetical order of the order of the Class recopilación se ha hecho según el orden alfabético de los from Cyprinodontiformes to Ophidiiformes; with their Órdenes de la Clase; con ilustraciones y datos asociados. 11 original illustrations and associated data. 11 of them are de las especies fueron descritas por Don Felipe Poey y Aloy, Poey's specimens, the famous Cuban naturalist from 19th conocido naturalista cubano del siglo XIX.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery of a New Mode of Oviparous Reproduction in Sharks and Its Evolutionary Implications Kazuhiro Nakaya1, William T
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Discovery of a new mode of oviparous reproduction in sharks and its evolutionary implications Kazuhiro Nakaya1, William T. White2 & Hsuan‑Ching Ho3,4* Two modes of oviparity are known in cartilaginous fshes, (1) single oviparity where one egg case is retained in an oviduct for a short period and then deposited, quickly followed by another egg case, and (2) multiple oviparity where multiple egg cases are retained in an oviduct for a substantial period and deposited later when the embryo has developed to a large size in each case. Sarawak swellshark Cephaloscyllium sarawakensis of the family Scyliorhinidae from the South China Sea performs a new mode of oviparity, which is named “sustained single oviparity”, characterized by a lengthy retention of a single egg case in an oviduct until the embryo attains a sizable length. The resulting fecundity of the Sarawak swellshark within a season is quite low, but this disadvantage is balanced by smaller body, larger neonates and quicker maturation. The Sarawak swellshark is further uniquely characterized by having glassy transparent egg cases, and this is correlated with a vivid polka‑dot pattern of the embryos. Five modes of lecithotrophic (yolk-dependent) reproduction, i.e. short single oviparity, sustained single oviparity, multiple oviparity, yolk‑sac viviparity of single pregnancy and yolk‑sac viviparity of multiple pregnancy were discussed from an evolutionary point of view. Te reproductive strategies of the Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fshes) are far more diverse than those of the other animal groups. Reproduction in chondrichthyan fshes is divided into two main modes, oviparity (egg laying) and viviparity (live bearing).
    [Show full text]